View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Development and Validation of the Assessment of Bullying Experiences Questionnaire for Neurodivergent Youth

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Development and Validation of the Assessment of Bullying Experiences Questionnaire for Neurodivergent Youth
Language: English
Authors: Morton, Hannah E. (ORCID 0000-0002-5487-5182), Gillis, Jennifer M., Zale, Emily L., Brimhall, Kim C., Romanczyk, Raymond G.
Source: Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Nov 2022 52(11):4651-4664.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Bullying, Evaluation, Parents, Youth, Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Neurological Impairments, Neurological Organization, Neurology, Autism Spectrum Disorders, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Control Groups, Peer Relationship, Validity, Questionnaires
DOI: 10.1007/s10803-021-05330-z
ISSN: 0162-3257
1573-3432
Abstract: Bullying victimization is a prevalent concern for neurodivergent (e.g., autistic, ADHD) youth. Bullying assessment methods vary widely and there is currently no questionnaire specific to neurodivergent youth. The "Assessment of Bullying Experiences" ("ABE") was created to fill this gap. The "ABE" questionnaire was completed by 335 parents of school-age youth characterized as autistic, having ADHD, or community comparison. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis identified a four-factor solution, aligning with verbal, physical, relational, and cyber victimization. Construct validity analyses indicate the "ABE" converges with an existing bullying questionnaire and diverges from disruptive behavior or internalizing symptoms. The "ABE" questionnaire is a valid measure of bullying that furthers understanding of nuance in peer victimization for neurodivergent youth and informs group-specific intervention.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1351466
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGNV_2YMV1m6fipVQ4Umm2ZAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEEkOzhUXmThnuJJaAIBEICBm1wznymLsTY4eFYE8Evx_tBA-_f3EXdqXJXh6PhCphliGJlHZbkAjBQckD-RxNuODD8x1BC9AWWmBv-UcczegrAvKQ6jdDr-NMUOmWOOjhQI6NrbhO9t_XbdE4LZbWVSPU14JOZqmB2TFSrUFJOsNa9b4h67kJZRw1hgd9RhLH8GzwaM28KjAkoGmKoLhJefijX5mGhfI50CDn9P
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0159632175;aut01nov.22;2022Oct14.07:07;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0159632175-1">Development and Validation of the Assessment of Bullying Experiences Questionnaire for Neurodivergent Youth </title> <p>Bullying victimization is a prevalent concern for neurodivergent (e.g., autistic, ADHD) youth. Bullying assessment methods vary widely and there is currently no questionnaire specific to neurodivergent youth. The Assessment of Bullying Experiences (ABE) was created to fill this gap. The ABE questionnaire was completed by 335 parents of school-age youth characterized as autistic, having ADHD, or community comparison. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis identified a four-factor solution, aligning with verbal, physical, relational, and cyber victimization. Construct validity analyses indicate the ABE converges with an existing bullying questionnaire and diverges from disruptive behavior or internalizing symptoms. The ABE questionnaire is a valid measure of bullying that furthers understanding of nuance in peer victimization for neurodivergent youth and informs group-specific intervention.</p> <p>Keywords: Autism; Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; Bullying; Assessment; Questionnaire</p> <p>Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05330-z.</p> <p>Bullying victimization is a serious concern for school age youth. Bullied youth are more likely to experience future internalizing problems and depression, have poor psychosocial adjustment and social anxiety, and be involved in violence (McVie, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref1">57</reflink>]; Nansel et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref2">64</reflink>]; Schwartz et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref3">75</reflink>]; Silberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref4">78</reflink>]). Estimates that about one third of youth are bullied each school year (Catone et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref5">18</reflink>]; Hicks et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref6">36</reflink>]; Modecki et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref7">60</reflink>]) make these negative outcomes especially troubling. Intervention programs may be helpful to reduce the frequency of bullying perpetration and victimization (Gaffney et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref8">32</reflink>]; Merrell et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref9">58</reflink>]; Ttofi & Farrington, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref10">88</reflink>]), particularly during the short-term intervention period (Cantone et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref11">15</reflink>]). However, the negative physical and mental health effects of being bullied can persist into adulthood (Copeland et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref12">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>]; Silberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref14">78</reflink>]; Takizawa et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref15">84</reflink>]; Wolke et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref16">95</reflink>]).</p> <p>Neurodivergent youth, such as those with diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), are particularly vulnerable to bullying victimization (Blake et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref17">10</reflink>]; Cappadocia et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref18">17</reflink>]; Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref19">85</reflink>]). About 46% of autistic youth have been bullied in the past few months (range: 7–77%) and up to 94% are bullied yearly (Maïano et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref20">53</reflink>]; Sreckovic et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref21">81</reflink>]). Estimates in ADHD indicate 43–65% of these youth are bullied each school year (Winters et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref22">94</reflink>]). There is some overlap in the profiles of social skill differences for autistic youth and youth with ADHD as well as high rates of co-occurrence (Antshel et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>]). The co-occurrence of autism + ADHD is related to greater attention problems, externalizing behaviors, and internalizing behaviors (Craig et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref24">25</reflink>]; Yerys et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref25">97</reflink>]). Autistic youth with ADHD may be particularly vulnerable to traditional bullying victimization (Sterzing et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref26">82</reflink>]; Zablotsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref27">99</reflink>]) but not cyber victimization (Hu et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref28">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>There are mixed findings regarding factors that may explain the increased risk of bullying victimization for neurodivergent youth. For example, bullying may be associated with more autism characteristics or social differences (Adams et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref29">2</reflink>]; Chou et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref30">20</reflink>]; Forrest et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref31">30</reflink>]; Zablotsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref32">100</reflink>]), fewer autism characteristics (Rowley et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref33">71</reflink>]; Shtayermman, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref34">77</reflink>]; Sterzing et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref35">82</reflink>]), or be unrelated to autism characteristics (Storch et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref36">83</reflink>]). Increased victimization may also be associated with aggressive behavior (Chou et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref37">20</reflink>]; Hebron & Humphrey, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref38">35</reflink>]; Hu et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref39">39</reflink>]), executive function deficits (Kloosterman et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref40">47</reflink>]), emotion dysregulation (Novin et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref41">65</reflink>]; Rieffe et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref42">70</reflink>]; Zablotsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref43">99</reflink>]), or symptoms of ADHD (Chou et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref44">20</reflink>]; Sterzing et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref45">82</reflink>]; Zablotsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref46">99</reflink>]). Alternatively, Sofronoff and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref47">79</reflink>]) indicate that social vulnerability better explains the associations of anger and behavior dysregulation with bullying in autistic youth. Finally, internalizing problems (e.g., anxiety, depression) are related to bullying victimization (Hu et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref48">39</reflink>]; Storch et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref49">83</reflink>]; Zeedyk et al., [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref50">101</reflink>]); however, discrepant findings between self- and parent-report suggest caution in interpretation (Adams et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref51">2</reflink>]; Tipton-Fisler et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref52">87</reflink>]; Ung et al., [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref53">89</reflink>]). In addition to mixed findings, summarizing and comparing results across studies is difficult because variability in bullying assessment methodologies generates a wide range of identified victims and reported prevalence rates (Humphrey & Hebron, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref54">41</reflink>]; Sreckovic et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref55">81</reflink>]; Vivolo-Kantor et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref56">92</reflink>]). Consistent identification of neurodivergent youth who are bullied is needed to reliably examine their increased risk and develop or adapt interventions for this population.</p> <p>Variability in conceptualizing bullying is not specific to neurodivergent youth. Bullying is a broad and complex, socially-nuanced construct. Researchers often reference definitional themes of repetition, a power imbalance, and harmful intent, which were was constructed based on the experiences of youth in the general education setting (Olweus, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref57">66</reflink>]). Applying these themes to youths' day-to-day experiences is multifaceted. Repetition, for example, is typically conceptualized as one perpetrator directing harmful behavior towards one recipient multiple times. However, bullying might also occur as multiple perpetrators each directing a single instance of harmful behavior towards a recipient (Kofoed & Staksrud, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref58">48</reflink>]). A power imbalance can manifest within the parameters of perceived disability or difference, even if this difference is not observable (Farmer et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref59">27</reflink>]). Neurotypical youth may perceive the social behavior of autistic or neurodivergent youth as bullying, even if it is not intended as such (e.g., echolalia being interpreted as mocking, honesty being interpreted as an insult; Cook et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref60">22</reflink>]; Hwang et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref61">43</reflink>]). In the reverse scenario, autistic youth who are frequently victimized may interpret neutral peer interactions as bullying (Van Roekel et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref62">90</reflink>]). The perception of being bullied, even without peer or parent corroboration, is still related to internalizing and externalizing problems (Hwang et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref63">42</reflink>]). Any of these examples would not be captured by Olweus' traditional bullying conceptualization.</p> <p>A detailed bullying definition is important to clarify the parameters of this construct (Modecki et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref64">60</reflink>]; Younan, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref65">98</reflink>]) but may be insufficient for valid assessment (Canty et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref66">16</reflink>]; Mishna et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref67">59</reflink>]). Asking questions about specific bullying types or behaviors is recommended as this approach generates higher prevalence rates compared to general question(s) about bullying (Bear et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref68">5</reflink>]; Huang & Cornell, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref69">40</reflink>]). Several studies suggest differentiating among verbal, physical, relational, and cyber bullying behaviors (Bradshaw et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref70">11</reflink>]; Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref71">14</reflink>]). However, a description for each bullying type is not yet established for any school-age youth. Further, the exemplar behaviors included in research descriptions may not encompass youths' daily experiences (Brion-Meisels & Garnett, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref72">12</reflink>]; Younan, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref73">98</reflink>]), and this is especially true for autistic youth (Fisher & Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref74">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Autistic and neurodivergent youth may be bullied in unique ways that reflect characteristic social communication differences or the presence of intense interests or repetitive patterns of behavior. This possibility was first acknowledged by Little ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref75">51</reflink>]), who added three questions about peer shunning to their use of the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ; Hamby et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref76">34</reflink>]) for the assessment of parent-report victimization in autistic children. These items ask about the frequency of being "invited to a birthday party," "picked last or almost last in school for team activities," and sitting "alone at lunchtime during school" (Little, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref77">51</reflink>], p. 48). Similarly, Adams and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref78">2</reflink>]) used the Self-report of Peer Victimization scale to measure youth-report victimization in autistic adolescents, but added three items asking about autism-related victimization in social settings. These items described being "teased or made fun of when you try to hang out with other kids," "other kids say mean things to you when you try to be their friend," and "other kids make fun of or tease you when you talk to them" (Adams et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref79">2</reflink>], p. 864). Adams and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref80">1</reflink>]) measured autism-specific victimization by asking parents about their child being provoked: "Has another child, who knows what bothers or upsets (add child's name), used that knowledge to purposely trigger a meltdown or aggressive outburst in (add child's name)?" (p. 3559). These adaptations are just a few examples of the specific bullying behaviors that neurodivergent youth may be more likely to experience compared to their neurotypical peers. Autistic youth's qualitative reports of bullying victimization include a variety of additional, specific behaviors: being poked, bit, having their shoes tied together, being stared at, annoyed on purpose, farted on, hissed at, being restrained or physically removed from a situation, peers touching their food or property, being bullied for not 'getting it' socially, teased for not being good at things, threats of social isolation, and being suddenly ignored due to being 'uncool' (Fisher & Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref81">29</reflink>]; Saggers et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref82">73</reflink>]; Sedgewick et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref83">76</reflink>]). These behaviors are not usually included in most bullying questionnaires and subsequently are likely overlooked when autistic and neurodivergent youth report on their experiences (Fisher & Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref84">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several recent reviews highlight the wide range of assessment methodologies used to measure bullying in both community samples (Vivolo-Kantor et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref85">92</reflink>]) and for autistic youth (Morton, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref86">61</reflink>]). These reviews indicate existing bullying measures vary widely, including in their use of a bullying definition, the type(s) of bullying included, and the referent time frames during which the bullying behavior must have occurred (Morton, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref87">61</reflink>]; Vivolo-Kantor et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref88">92</reflink>]). Assessment with different methods and time frames generates varied bullying prevalence estimates (Bear et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref89">5</reflink>]; Lee & Cornell, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref90">50</reflink>]; Maïano et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref91">53</reflink>]), suggesting that youth identified as victims of bullying in one study may not be reliably captured as such in other studies. Consistency is needed in the use of a standardized bullying definition as well as measurement that is both reliable and valid to facilitate comparison of findings across studies (Beckman et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref92">7</reflink>]; Volk et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref93">93</reflink>]). None of the existing methodologies for bullying assessment in autism meet literature recommendations for measurement of this construct (Morton, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref94">61</reflink>]). A gold-standard measure for the assessment of bullying experienced by neurodivergent youth is needed.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-2">The Present Study</hd> <p>In this study, we aimed to develop and validate a questionnaire that adheres to literature recommendations for bullying assessment and includes behaviors that neurodivergent youth may be uniquely likely to experience. We examined the performance of this questionnaire for autistic youth, youth with ADHD, and a community comparison sample. It was hypothesized that bullying victimization would contain four factors describing physical, verbal, relational, and cyber behaviors. An alternative hypothesis of five factors was also considered, with autism-specific victimization as a separate type of behavior alongside the four established behavior types. It was further hypothesized that this questionnaire would demonstrate acceptable psychometric properties for autistic youth as well as youth with ADHD or in the general community.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-3">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159632175-4">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were 335 adults (at least 18 years old) who reported having a child between 6 and 17 years old. Parents were primarily female (93.5%) with an average age of 40.9 (SD = 8.4, range 21–71 years old). Youth were primarily male (70.8%) with an average age of 11.6 (SD = 3.4). Many parents reported Caucasian (White) race for themselves (76.3%) and their child (66.7%). According to the 2019 United States Census, this sample is similar in race, high school education, household income, and employment compared to the national population from which it was drawn. This sample has more female participants compared to the national population (50.8%) and more participants with at least a four-year degree compared to the national population (31.5%). Further participant descriptives are presented in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1 Participant characteristics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Parent</p></th><th align="left" colspan="5"><p>Child</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Overall</p></th><th align="left"><p>Autism + ADHD</p></th><th align="left"><p>Autism</p></th><th align="left"><p>ADHD</p></th><th align="left"><p>Community</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Sample size (<italic>n</italic>)</p></td><td align="left"><p>335</p></td><td align="left"><p>335</p></td><td align="left"><p>113</p></td><td align="left"><p>105</p></td><td align="left"><p>38</p></td><td align="left"><p>79</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender (%)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Male</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>70.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>77.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>76.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>71.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>54.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Female</p></td><td align="left"><p>93.5</p></td><td align="left"><p>27.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>21.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>21.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>29.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>41.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Other</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.6</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Age <italic>M</italic>(SD)</p></td><td align="left"><p>40.9 (8.4)</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.6 (3.4)</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.9 (3.1)</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.0 (3.5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.9 (3.5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>12.0 (3.6)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Race (%)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> American Indian</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.6</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Asian</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Black</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.7</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.6</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Hispanic</p></td><td align="left"><p>13.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>17.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>16.7</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>13.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>21.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Pacific Islander</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.6</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Caucasian</p></td><td align="left"><p>76.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>66.7</p></td><td align="left"><p>68.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>70.5</p></td><td align="left"><p>71.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>60.0</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Biracial</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.6</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.6</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Highest education (%)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> High school</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Some college</p></td><td align="left"><p>31.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 4-year degree</p></td><td align="left"><p>27.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Grad work/degree</p></td><td align="left"><p>26.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Household income (%)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> < $35,000</p></td><td align="left"><p>24.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> $35,000–$49,999</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> $50,000–$74,999</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.7</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> $75,000–$99,999</p></td><td align="left"><p>16.6</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> ≥$100,000</p></td><td align="left"><p>29.5</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Employed (%)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Part time</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.5</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Full time</p></td><td align="left"><p>40.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Married (%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>72.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SRS-2 M(SD)</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>70.7 (14.1)</p></td><td align="left"><p>78.4 (8.5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>75.2 (9.9)</p></td><td align="left"><p>70.3 (14.5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>53.8 (10.4)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>VADPRS</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Inattent. Sx <italic>M</italic>(SD)</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.1 (3.3)</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.0 (2.3)</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.5 (3.0)</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.8 (2.6)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.3 (2.8)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> H/I Sx <italic>M</italic>(SD)</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.6 (3.0)</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.0 (2.7)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.3 (2.8)</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.2 (2.9)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.2 (2.1)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>SRS-2 </emph>SRS-2 Total T-score, <emph>VADPRS</emph> Number of ADHD inattentive (Inattent.) and hyperactive/impulsive (H/I) symptoms. <emph>Autism</emph> + <emph>ADHD</emph> Autism and co-occurring ADHD, <emph>Autism</emph> Autism without ADHD, <emph>ADHD</emph> ADHD without Autism, <emph>Community</emph> neither Autism nor ADHD</p> <p>There were an additional 39 participants who provided demographic responses but discontinued participation prior to completing the <emph>Assessment of Bullying Experiences (ABE)</emph> questionnaire (the primary outcome variable of interest) and an additional eight participants who completed demographic responses and the <emph>ABE</emph> but did not complete autism or ADHD questionnaires. These participants were removed from the dataset prior to any analyses due to inability to address study aims. The remaining participants answered all questions, facilitating complete case data analysis. There was no difference between the 335 participants in the final dataset and these 47 excluded participants according to parent age (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib382" id="ref95">382</reflink>) = 0.69, <emph>p</emph> = 0.75), parent gender (Cramer's V = 0.028, Fisher's exact = 1.00), parent-report of youth's ASD diagnosis (χ2(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref96">1</reflink>) = 1.32, <emph>p</emph> = 0.25) or parent-report of youth's ADHD diagnosis (χ2(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref97">1</reflink>) = 1.10, <emph>p</emph> = 0.29). The youth whose parents discontinued participation were on average 0.85 years older than parents who completed the study (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib382" id="ref98">382</reflink>) = 1.59, <emph>p</emph> = 0.06) and were more likely to be biracial compared to other races (Cramer's V = 0.19; Fisher's exact <emph>p</emph> = 0.05).</p> <p>Parents reported diagnoses their child had received; diagnoses of autism and ADHD were confirmed via symptom checklists and questionnaires (see materials, below). Following diagnostic confirmation, there were 218 autistic youth and 151 youth with ADHD. Crosstabulation of these youth revealed 113 autistic youth with ADHD, 105 autistic youth without ADHD, 38 youth with ADHD only, and 79 youth in the community comparison group.</p> <p>This study was reviewed and approved by the IRB at the authors' institution. Participants were recruited online throughout the United States using several methods: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref99">1</reflink>) Contacting parent- and autism-related organizations and requesting distribution of our recruitment materials; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref100">2</reflink>) Posting study invitations in Facebook groups and pages topically relevant to the target demographic; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref101">3</reflink>) A paid Facebook advertisement inviting parents of youth ages 6–17 to participate. Recruitment materials and procedures targeted parents of "youth with or without ASD" or "autistic or non-autistic youth" (per organization preference for person- or identify-first language) due to the nature of study aims. Although parents of autistic youth were especially encouraged to participate, participation was open to any parent with a child between 6 and 17 years old.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-5">Materials</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159632175-6">Assessment of Bullying Experiences (ABE)</hd> <p>This measure of bullying victimization was created by the first author. The <emph>ABE</emph> provides a definition of bullying based on existing literature (Brion-Meisels & Garnett, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref102">12</reflink>]; Gladden et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref103">33</reflink>]; Olweus, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref104">66</reflink>]; Pepler & Craig, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref105">68</reflink>]) that is expanded to incorporate the nature of bullying for autistic youth or those with related neurodivergent characteristics (Bitsika & Sharpley, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref106">9</reflink>]; Tipton-Fisler et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref107">87</reflink>]; Zeedyk et al., [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref108">101</reflink>]). Additional details regarding the development of this definition are published elsewhere (Morton et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref109">62</reflink>]). Parents then indicate how frequently their child experiences specific bullying behaviors ("i.e., another child has acted this way towards your child") using a 6-point Likert scale (at least once per week, 2–3 times per month, about once a month, has happened in the past year, lifetime occurrence, has never happened). Twenty-five of the bullying items were derived from vignettes in the <emph>Bullying Scenarios Survey</emph> (Morton et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref110">63</reflink>]); 14 questions were added to describe bullying behaviors that autistic or neurodivergent youth may be uniquely vulnerable to experiencing (e.g., teasing due to misunderstanding a social cue, being manipulated to display inappropriate behavior) based on the authors' knowledge of social vulnerability and autistic youth's qualitative reports of bullying in prior literature (Adams et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref111">1</reflink>]; Adams et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref112">2</reflink>]; Fisher & Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref113">29</reflink>]; Saggers et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref114">73</reflink>]; Sofronoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref115">79</reflink>]; Spears et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref116">80</reflink>]). See Electronic Supplemental Material for the full <emph>ABE</emph> questionnaire. Psychometric properties of the ABE are described in the results (below) as an outcome of interest for this study.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-7">Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (OBQ)</hd> <p>The OBQ is a widely-used measure of bullying perpetration and victimization (Lee & Cornell, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref117">50</reflink>]; Olweus, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref118">66</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref119">67</reflink>]) including use in a nationally representative survey of over 15,000 neurotypical children (Nansel et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref120">64</reflink>]) and several studies of autistic youth (Kloosterman et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref121">46</reflink>]; Kowalski & Fedina, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref122">49</reflink>]; Rieffe et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref123">70</reflink>]). Approval was obtained to adapt wording of each item for parent-report (e.g., "My child" rather than "I"; L. Arneson & S. Limber, personal communication, January 8, 2019). This questionnaire provides a bullying definition and asks about the frequency of bullying and victimization in the past couple of months (i.e., "I have not been bullied in the past couple of months," "only once or twice," "Three times a month," "about once a week," "several times a week"). Respondents also rate the frequency of ten bullying or victimization behaviors using the same scale. The victimization portion of this questionnaire was administered for the purpose of construct validity analyses as a previously-validated measure of bullying. The internal consistency of the 10 <emph>OBQ</emph> victimization items in this sample was good to excellent (whole sample: α = 0.95, autism: α = 0.89, ADHD: α = 0.86).</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-8">Vanderbilt ADHD Diagnostic Parent Rating Scale (VADPRS)</hd> <p>This parent-report scale measures ADHD symptoms and screens for other common comorbidities, such as oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), anxiety, and depression (Wolraich et al., [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref124">96</reflink>]). Parents indicate how frequently their child has displayed 47 specific behaviors in the past six months on a 4-point Likert scale (never, occasionally, often, very often). There are also questions about the child's performance in eight areas (e.g., reading, writing, relationships with peers, relationships with siblings), which are rated on a 5-point Likert scale to identify areas of functional impairment (excellent, above average, average, somewhat of a problem, problematic). The <emph>VADPRS</emph> includes four factors (inattention, hyperactivity/ impulsivity, ODD-CD, and anxiety-depression; Wolraich et al., [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref125">96</reflink>]). Symptom cutoffs are provided to identify youth with clinical difficulties in each of these areas. In this study, internal consistency of the <emph>VADPRS</emph> overall was acceptable to good (whole sample: α = 0.85, autism: α = 0.76, ADHD: α = 0.78). Regarding the four <emph>VADPRS</emph> factors, internal consistency for the inattention domain was good to excellent (whole sample: α = 0.93; autism: α = 0.90; ADHD: α = 0.89); for the hyperactivity/impulsivity domain was unacceptable to good (whole sample: α = 0.56, autism: α = 0.40, ADHD: α = 0.31); for the ODD-CD domain was excellent (whole sample: α = 0.91, autism: α = 0.90, ADHD: α = 0.90); and for the anxiety-depression domain was unacceptable to excellent (whole sample: α = 0.47, autism: α = 0.39, ADHD: α = 0.90).</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-9">Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition (SRS-2), School Age Form</hd> <p>The <emph>SRS-2</emph> is a measure of autism characteristics that supports clinical decision making for the diagnosis of autism (Constantino & Gruber, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref126">21</reflink>]). The <emph>SRS-2</emph> has excellent internal consistency in standardization and clinical samples, as well as good predictive and concurrent validity and interrater reliability (Bruni, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref127">13</reflink>]). The school-age form is completed by parents or teachers of youth ages 4–18 years old. Respondents indicate how frequently the child displays 65 behaviors in the past 6 months using a 4-point Likert scale (not true, sometimes true, often true, almost always true). The <emph>SRS-2</emph> total <emph>T</emph>-score indicates degree of social difference (T scores ≥ 76 = severe; T scores between 66 and 75 = moderate; T scores between 60 and 65 = mild; T scores ≤ 59 = not elevated). Within this study, the internal consistency of the <emph>SRS-2</emph> was good for the overall sample (α = 0.97) as well as for autistic youth (α = 0.94) and youth with ADHD (α = 0.95).</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-10">Demographic Questionnaire</hd> <p>Demographic questions about the child and parent were completed for sample characterization and to better understand youth's school placement and school supports. Parents were asked to report on their child receiving an autism diagnosis from a medical or mental health professional: "<emph>Has your child ever been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder? (for example: ASD, Autism, High-Functioning Autism, Asperger's Syndrome, Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD), PDD-NOS)</emph>," "<emph>At what age was your child first diagnosed with ASD?</emph>" and "<emph>Who determined your child's ASD diagnosis?</emph>" Parents reported their child's other mental health diagnoses in response to the question: "<emph>Has your child been diagnosed with any of the following mental health disorders?</emph>" Respondents selected their child's mental health diagnoses from a pre-populated list, with multiple selections possible via checkboxes.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-11">Diagnostic Confirmation</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159632175-12">Autism</hd> <p>Parents of 215 youth indicated their child had been diagnosed with autism by a physician/pediatrician/neurologist (<emph>n</emph> = 81), psychologist (<emph>n</emph> = 78), psychiatrist (<emph>n</emph> = 42), school staff (<emph>n</emph> = 6), or other (e.g., "early intervention"; <emph>n</emph> = 7). The average age of diagnosis was 5.64 (SD = 3.25). Parent-reported autism diagnosis was confirmed by a SRS-2 Total <emph>T</emph>-score above the clinical cutoff (<emph>n</emph> = 207), an IEP classification of "Autism" (<emph>n</emph> = 5) or a SRS-2 total raw score above 43 (<emph>n</emph> = 3; Cholemkery et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref128">19</reflink>]). The SRS-2 <emph>T</emph>-scores for 48 youth were above the clinical cutoff but their parents did not report a prior diagnosis of autism. None of these youth had an IEP classification of autism, but some had an IEP with another classification (e.g., intellectual disability, multiple disabilities) or had other parent-reported diagnoses. Three youth with SRS-2 raw scores > 80 and <emph>T</emph>-scores > 70 were characterized as autistic. This determination was made in consideration that these youth did not have another parent-reported diagnosis or IEP classification that might explain this elevation, and in accordance with the sensitivity/specificity cutoff for distinguishing autism from other behavior disorders (Cholemkery et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref129">19</reflink>]). Further, barriers to a clinical diagnosis of autism include non-White race, lower socioeconomic status, and difficulty finding a psychology provider (Fountain et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref130">31</reflink>]; Mandell et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref131">54</reflink>]; Martinez et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref132">55</reflink>]; Thomas et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref133">86</reflink>]). Two of the youth re-characterized in the autism group were Persons of Color (one Asian, one Black or African American), the third youth's family reportedly lived in a rural area, and all three came from households with an income of less than $49,000/year. The remaining 45 youth with SRS-2 total <emph>T</emph>-scores above the clinical cutoff were retained as non-autistic due to having other, parent-reported diagnoses or IEP classifications that may explain these elevations (e.g., intellectual disability, ADHD, DBDs). This diagnostic characterization identified 218 autistic youth and 118 non-autistic youth within the study sample.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-13">Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)</hd> <p>Parents of 156 youth reported their child had been diagnosed with ADHD. Symptom counts on the VADPRS inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity domains were used to confirm these diagnoses (6 out of 9 symptoms present "often" or "very often"), along with the presence of functional impairment (at least one VADPRS performance area "somewhat of a problem" or "problematic") and consideration of youth medications. The ADHD diagnoses for 121 youth were confirmed based on VADPRS cutoffs. Parent-reported ADHD diagnoses were confirmed for an additional 25 youth based on currently taking medication commonly prescribed in ADHD (i.e., Adderall, Concerta, Intuniv, Propranolol, Ritalin, Strattera), given the likelihood that this medication treatment mitigated the reported severity of ADHD symptoms. Ten youth with parent-reported ADHD diagnoses were characterized as non-ADHD due to scoring below VADPRS symptom cutoffs for both inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity and not being prescribed medication commonly used in ADHD. Five youth without parent-reported ADHD diagnoses were characterized in the ADHD group due to scoring above VADPRS symptom cutoffs for inattention and/or hyperactivity/impulsivity AND being prescribed ADHD medication. These decisions resulted in 151 youth with ADHD and 181 youth without ADHD in the study sample.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-14">Co-Occurring Diagnoses</hd> <p>Parents of 198 youth reported their child had been diagnosed with a mental health diagnosis (e.g., anxiety, depression, intellectual disability, eating disorder). Of these, 52 youth were neither autistic nor had a diagnosis of ADHD. Although the VADPRS screens for co-occurring psychopathology, symptom cutoffs on this measure may not appropriately characterize comorbid diagnoses for youth with ADHD (Becker et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref134">6</reflink>]). Thus, the presence of other, co-occurring diagnoses was not further delineated within these samples and the community comparison group comprised youth who were neither autistic nor had ADHD. We generated total sum scores to measure severity of symptoms for the ODD-CD and depression-anxiety domains of the VADPRS (Becker et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref135">6</reflink>]), which may be useful to broadly understand the externalizing and internalizing symptoms within our neurodiverse sample.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-15">Procedure</hd> <p>All study participation occurred online via a Qualtrics survey. Respondents first viewed a consent document and indicated their consent to participate by clicking "I agree" to enter the survey. Next, they completed demographic questions about themselves and their child. At the beginning of the child demographic questions, parents were instructed to think about one child and answer the subsequent questionnaires about this child. Following demographic questions, respondents completed the ABE, OBQ, SRS-2, and VADPRS. Questionnaire order was randomized to account for order effects that have been noted in other bullying assessment research (Huang & Cornell, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref136">40</reflink>]). Participants who completed the survey were given the option to provide their contact information in a separate survey to enter a drawing for one of three, $100 gift cards as remuneration.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-16">Analysis Plan</hd> <p>Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted as the first step in validating the ABE questionnaire. Data were inspected to ensure statistical assumptions were not violated. Bartlett's test of sphericity was used to confirm the presence of relationships within the data (i.e., significantly different from an identity matrix; Bartlett, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref137">4</reflink>]; Dziuban & Harris, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref138">26</reflink>]; Howard, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref139">38</reflink>]); the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy was conducted to confirm the relationships within the data were sufficiently large (Dziuban & Harris, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref140">26</reflink>]; Howard, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref141">38</reflink>]; Kaiser, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref142">44</reflink>]). EFA was conducted using the Iterated Principal Factor method with Promax rotation due to likelihood that sub-factors were correlated (i.e., experiencing one type of victimization is related to experiencing other types; Howard, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref143">38</reflink>]). Items were retained according to the 0.40–0.30–0.20 rule: loading at least 0.40 on a primary factor, below 0.30 on any other factors, and a difference of at least 0.20 between primary loading and loading on any other factors (Howard, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref144">38</reflink>]). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was run to confirm appropriateness of the factor structure. Model fit was examined in accordance with the following recommended cutoffs: χ<sups>2</sups>, CFI > 0.95, TLI > 0.95, RMSEA < 0.08 (Kenny, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref145">45</reflink>]; MacCallum et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref146">52</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-17">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159632175-18">Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)</hd> <p>The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib741" id="ref147">741</reflink>) = 9887.89, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) indicating the data were significantly different from the identity matrix. The KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy measured in the Excellent rage (KMO = 0.93) suggesting latent factors are likely present and EFA may be performed. Using the Kaiser ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref148">44</reflink>]) criterion, EFA of the 39 victimization items revealed five factors with an Eigenvalue > 1.0. Velicer's Minimum Average Partial (MAP) test also suggested a five factor solution was most appropriate (Velicer, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref149">91</reflink>]). Visual scree plot (VSP) analysis indicated four factors were present prior to the "elbow" where successive eigenvalue decreases became minimal (Zoski & Jurs, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref150">102</reflink>]).</p> <p>ABE item loadings were first examined for a five-factor solution. Within this solution, only one item loaded > 0.4 onto Factor 5 (<emph>made to do something for a peer</emph>) and this item also loaded > 0.3 onto another factor. According to the 0.40–0.30–0.20 rule (Howard, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref151">38</reflink>]), the five-factor result would thus not retain any items on the fifth factor. Given the alternate hypothesis of a five-factor result, the content of items that loaded > 0.2 onto the fifth factor was examined. These items largely describe victimization that may be related to autism characteristics: <emph>teasing about a physical disability, knocking food/items from hands, made to do something for a peer, tricked into believing or doing something harmful, personal information used against them</emph>.</p> <p>The four-factor solution was examined next. According to the 0.40–0.30–0.20 rule, two items were excluded due to loading < 0.40 onto any factor. Six items were excluded due to loading > 0.40 on the primary factor but > 0.3 onto another factor. The remaining items were distributed across the four factors. Examination of factor content suggested these items describe four types of victimization: verbal, physical, relational, and cyber (see Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2 EFA factor loadings for ABE items 4-factor solution</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>#</p></th><th align="left"><p>Basic item content</p></th><th align="left"><p>Verbal</p></th><th align="left"><p>Physical</p></th><th align="left"><p>Relational</p></th><th align="left"><p>Cyber</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Name calling</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.59</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Taunt or bait</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.48</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>*Tease: race/ethnicity</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.49</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Tease: appearance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.75</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Tease: physical disability</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.69</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Tease: motor behavior</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.74</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>Tease: social mistake</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.62</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>Tease: help or supports</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.66</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>Tease: clumsy</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.73</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>Tease: speech</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.49</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mock or mimic</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.60</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>*Spread rumors</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.47</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>18</p></td><td align="left"><p>Direct: hit, push, shove</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.83</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>*Indirect: hit, push, shove</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.94</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>20</p></td><td align="left"><p>Object: hit, push, shove</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.84</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>21</p></td><td align="left"><p>*Hold down or restrain</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.50</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>22</p></td><td align="left"><p>Physically take object</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.73</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>*Damage possession</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.65</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>24</p></td><td align="left"><p>*Knock food/item from hands</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.60</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>25</p></td><td align="left"><p>*Other inappropriate contact</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.63</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>27</p></td><td align="left"><p>Group exclusion: spontaneous</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.81</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>28</p></td><td align="left"><p>Group exclusion: planned</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.80</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ignored by known peer</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.71</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>31</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teased joining a group</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.65</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>32</p></td><td align="left"><p>Provoked to have outburst</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.53</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>35</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hurtful digital messages</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.78</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>36</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hurtful post online</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.88</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>37</p></td><td align="left"><p>Exclusion: online group</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.80</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>38</p></td><td align="left"><p>*Online impersonation</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.74</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>39</p></td><td align="left"><p>*Embarrassing photo/video</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.65</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>40</p></td><td align="left"><p>Social media insults</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.81</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>Variance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.89</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.19</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.97</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.84</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>Proportion</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.54</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.50</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.44</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.32</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>Reliability (α)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p> Overall</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.92</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.84</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.91</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.90</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p> Autism</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.92</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.84</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.89</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.90</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p> ADHD</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.92</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.86</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.90</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.89</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p> Community</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.83</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.79</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.91</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.88</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*Item excluded during confirmatory factor analysis and not included within final reliability calculations</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-19">Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)</hd> <p>Second-order, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to confirm the four-factor victimization model, with victimization included as a second-order latent construct. The ratio of our sample to the number of free parameters was 4.68:1, which is just below the recommended cutoff of 5:1 (Bentler & Chou, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref152">8</reflink>]). The CFA indicated standardized factor loadings > 0.40 for each item. The standardized residual covariances among items were then examined; eight items were sequentially removed due to significant covariance greater than 2.58 that may indicate poor model fit (Schermelleh-Engel et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref153">74</reflink>]). Following these changes, model fit was acceptable: χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib199" id="ref154">199</reflink>) = 972.67, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001; CFI = 0.959; RMSEA = 0.055; RMSEA 90% CI = 0.047–0.062; TLI = 0.952. Within the final model, the internal consistency overall and for each factor was good to excellent for the total sample (Overall α = 0.94, Verbal α = 0.92, Physical α = 0.84, Relational α = 0.91, Cyber α = 0.90), as well as for autistic youth (Overall α = 0.94, Verbal α = 0.92, Physical α = 0.84, Relational α = 0.89, Cyber α = 0.90), youth with ADHD (Overall α = 0.93, Verbal α = 0.92, Physical α = 0.86, Relational α = 0.90, Cyber α = 0.89), and community youth (Overall α = 0.92, Verbal α = 0.83, Physical α = 0.79, Relational α = 0.91, Cyber α = 0.88).</p> <p>There were several correlated item-level error terms in the final model; correlated error terms were only permitted within the same latent construct (e.g., the error terms for two verbal bullying items were permitted to covary). Examination of items with covaried error may be useful to identify patterns of responding to victimization items within each construct (i.e., due to nonrandom measurement error) or items with content overlap. For verbal victimization, positively covaried errors were found for name calling and taunting/baiting (B = 0.30, SE = 0.08, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), name calling and teasing about appearance (B = 0.34, SE = 0.09, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), and teasing about a physical disability and teasing about odd motor behavior (B = 0.32, SE = 0.07, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001); there was also a negatively covaried error term for taunting/baiting and teasing about being clumsy (B = -0.28, SE = 0.07, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). Relational victimization items describing spontaneous group exclusion and planned group exclusion had a positive error covariance (B = 0.74, SE = 0.10, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). Finally, there was a positive error covariance between cyber victimization items describing an online post and social media insults (B = 0.11, SE = 0.03, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). See Fig. 1 for visualization of the CFA model. See Online Resource 1 for the final version of the <emph>ABE</emph> questionnaire.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 ABE Items Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model. Standardized regression weights for each item and latent factor loading. Covariance shown as estimates for covaried error terms, all are significant at p <.001</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-20">Construct Validity</hd> <p>A total victimization score was generated by summing responses to the 22 ABE victimization items, with higher scores indicating experiencing more victimization behaviors more frequently; a similar total score was created with the 10 OBQ victimization items. Regarding convergent validity, there was a strong positive correlation between total scores on the ABE and OBQ (<emph>r</emph>(<reflink idref="bib324" id="ref155">324</reflink>) = 0.74, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). The VADPRS total sum scores for the ODD-CD and depression-anxiety domains were used to examine discriminant validity. There was a moderate positive correlation between total victimization score on the ABE and the VADPRS ODD-CD domain (<emph>r</emph>(<reflink idref="bib329" id="ref156">329</reflink>) = 0.47, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and a weak positive correlation with the VADPRS depression-anxiety domain (<emph>r</emph>(<reflink idref="bib328" id="ref157">328</reflink>) = 0.29, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001).</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-21">Discussion</hd> <p>The <emph>Assessment of Bullying Experiences (ABE)</emph> questionnaire was developed and validated as a measure of bullying victimization for neurodivergent youth. Validation analyses indicate acceptable model fit, construct validity, and internal consistency. The final, 22-item ABE is a valid measure of bullying victimization for all school-age youth and is the first bullying assessment questionnaire written to incorporate the specific experiences of neurodivergent youth, as reported by prior literature.</p> <p>Exploratory factor analysis for the ABE produced a four-factor structure corresponding to verbal, physical, relational, and cyber victimization. Model fit indices from confirmatory factor analysis suggested acceptable model fit for this solution. A five-factor solution was also considered based on factor selection testing, and due to the hypothesis that autism-specific behaviors may be a separate type of victimization. Although several autism-specific behaviors loaded onto a fifth factor, these items also loaded onto alternate factors. There were no items that loaded exclusively onto a fifth factor. Autism characteristics may increase vulnerability to bullying victimization (Adams et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref158">2</reflink>]; Chou et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref159">20</reflink>]; Forrest et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref160">30</reflink>]; Zablotsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref161">100</reflink>]); however, these data indicate that autism-specific victimization is not a separate type of bullying. These factor analysis results are consistent with previous literature distinguishing among verbal physical, relational, and cyber behaviors (Bradshaw et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref162">11</reflink>]; Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref163">14</reflink>]) and suggest that autism-related peer victimization experiences can be best characterized within the four established bullying types. This study also extends a previous, second-order CFA indicating that bullying is comprised of verbal, physical, and relational behaviors (Finger et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref164">28</reflink>]) by adding cyber victimization as a related but distinct form of bullying. Cyber behavior is a relatively-newer form of bullying that is often not included in bullying assessment measures (Vivolo-Kantor et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref165">92</reflink>]). However, youth who are victims of traditional bullying are over nine times more likely to also experience cyber bullying (Holfeld & Grabe, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref166">37</reflink>]). The assessment of specific bullying types also produces higher prevalence rates compared to asking more generally about the occurrence of bullying (Bear et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref167">5</reflink>]; Huang & Cornell, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref168">40</reflink>]). Thus, it is crucial that assessments ask about each type of bullying behavior to increase measurement validity.</p> <p>Within the best-fitting model, several error terms were permitted to covary within the same latent variable (type of victimization). These covaried errors suggest that some specific behaviors, even within a type of victimization, are related to each other. This finding is consistent with research that youth with disabilities are more like to be repeatedly bullied in different ways (Blake et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref169">10</reflink>]). Understanding which victimization behaviors are likely to co-occur (e.g., being left out of spontaneous group events and planned group events; name calling and teasing about appearance) may be useful information for parents, teachers, and other practitioners as they seek to identify when youth are being bullied.</p> <p>Construct validity analyses demonstrated the ABE converges with the OBQ, a previously-validated and widely-used measure of bullying victimization in the general population (Lee & Cornell, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref170">50</reflink>]; Olweus, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref171">66</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref172">67</reflink>]). The total score on the ABE was moderately correlated with symptoms of ODD/CD and weakly correlated with symptoms of anxiety/depression. These findings indicate the ABE diverges from measuring externalizing or internalizing behavior, more broadly. Acceptable internal consistency was found for the ABE items overall as well as for each domain (Verbal, Physical, Relational, and Cyber), which was replicated separately for the entire sample, autistic youth, and youth with ADHD. These findings further support the use of the ABE as a valid measure of bullying victimization in these groups.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-22">Limitations and Future Directions</hd> <p>Interpretation and dissemination of these results are suggested with several important considerations. First, all data collection occurred online, and as such, child diagnoses were reported by adult respondents. Within the constraints of our digital methodology, we used a systematic process for confirmation of autism and ADHD diagnoses, including examination of youth's IEP classifications, cutoff scores from questionnaires (SRS-2, VADPRS), and medication status. These procedures are consistent with existing literature using questionnaire scores above a clinical cutoff to confirm parent-reported diagnoses of autism and ADHD (Petrou et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref173">69</reflink>]; Russell et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref174">72</reflink>]). Administration of questionnaires to all respondents further strengthens our decision making as we were able to identify characteristics of autism or ADHD for all participants and use clinical judgement to interpret these score profiles. Additionally, we acknowledge limitations surrounding the use of parent-report for bullying research. This approach is consistent with the literature on bullying of autistic youth, which largely employs parent or teacher reports of bullying, or only includes youth who can complete written questionnaires. Multi-informant assessment of bullying is recommended to more comprehensively understand victimization experiences (Mayes et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref175">56</reflink>]), and especially for autistic populations (Maïano et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref176">53</reflink>]). Further, the development of the parent-report version of this questionnaire included autism-specific behaviors as qualitatively described by autistic youth in prior studies; however, autistic community members were not directly involved with our research team in the development of this questionnaire. Adaptation and validation of the <emph>ABE</emph> for youth self-report is currently underway, including piloting the original 39-tem measure with autistic and ADHD youth. Finally, our study participants may be viewed as a convenience sample due to respondents self-selecting for their participation from distribution of recruitment materials to support groups, clinical organizations, and via Facebook ads. Parents who took the time to participate in this study were likely motivated by the topic or chance of remuneration. As such, the amount of bullying reported in this study may be higher than would be reported from a truly random sampling procedure and results may not fully generalize to the population. However, the bullying factor structure should not be altered by an overall increase in the reported occurrence of bullying and our sample demographics are reasonably similar to national averages (see Participants). Thus, we believe this consideration to be relatively minor for the conducted analyses. Further validation of the ABE that uses more comprehensive recruitment strategies (e.g., school-wide distribution) is an important future direction. Finally, this study was reasonably large to permit the conducted factor analyses with a ratio of participants to the number of free parameters of 4.68:1; however, examination of different factor structures by diagnostic group or gender would have reduced this ratio further and was not feasible with the current sample size. Further analysis with a larger sample of participants would be important to confirm if the ABE factor structure (and the structure of bullying domains, more broadly) holds for different demographic groups. Future analyses to identify differences in <emph>ABE</emph> scores among diagnostic groups and genders would also be useful to inform intervention targets for mitigating peer victimization in neurodivergent youth.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-23">Conclusion</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to create and validate a bullying assessment measure specific to the experiences of neurodivergent (e.g., autistic or ADHD) youth. The <emph>Assessment of Bullying Experiences (ABE)</emph> questionnaire was developed based on vignette exemplar behaviors and autism-specific victimization behaviors described in the literature. Validation analyses indicate acceptable model fit for a four-factor victimization structure; construct validity and internal consistency were also adequate. Consistent with prior findings on bullying in school-age youth, victimization was comprised of physical, verbal, relational, and cyber behaviors. The ABE is a valid measure of bullying victimization that refines the definition and conceptualization of bullying victimization for neurodivergent youth and informs adaptation of general bullying interventions for group-specific bullying experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-24">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors wish to thank Summer Bottini, PhD, BCBA-D, for her work formatting the ABE questionnaire. This manuscript was prepared from the first author's doctoral dissertation.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-25">Author Contributions</hd> <p>This study was conceptualized and designed by HM, JG, RR, and EZ. Material preparation and data collection were performed by HM. Data anlysis was conducted by HM and KB. The manuscript was drafted by HM and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-26">Funding</hd> <p>This study was funded by the Binghamton University startup account for Dr. Jennifer Gillis.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-27">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0159632175-28">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-29">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>This study was approved by the IRB at the authors' university. This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-30">Consent to Participate</hd> <p>Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-31">Supplementary Information</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file1 (PDF 228 kb)</p> <hd id="AN0159632175-32">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0159632175-33"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref80" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adams R, Taylor J, Duncan A, Bishop S. Peer victimization and educational outcomes in mainstreamed adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2016; 46; 11: 3557-3566. 10.1007/s10803-016-2893-3. 27565652</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref29" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Adams RE, Fredstrom BK, Duncan AW, Holleb LJ, Bishop SL. Using self- and parent-reports to test the association between peer victimization and internalizing symptoms in verbally fluent adolescents with ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2014; 44: 861-872. 10.1007/s10803-013-1938-0. 24005987</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref23" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Antshel KM, Zhang-James Y, Wagner KE, Ledesma A, Faraone SV. An update on the comorbidity of ADHD and ASD: A focus on clinical management. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics. 2016; 16; 3: 279-203. 10.1586/14737175.2016.1146591. 26807870</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref137" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bartlett MS. Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical Psychology. 1950; 3: 77-85. 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1950.tb00285.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref68" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bear, G. G, Mantz, L. S, Glutting, J. J, Yang, C, & Boyer, D. E. (2015). Differences in bullying victimization between students with and without disabilities. School Psychology Review, 44(1), 98–116 https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR44-1.98-116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref134" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Becker SP, Langberg JM, Vaughn AJ, Epstein JN. Clinical utility of the Vanderbilt ADHD diagnostic parent rating scale comorbidity screening scales. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. 2012; 33; 3: 221-228. 10.1097/DBP.0b013e318245615b. 22343479. 3319856</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref92" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beckman L, Hellström L, von Kobyletzki L. Cyber bullying among children with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 2020; 61; 1: 54-67. 10.1111/sjop.12525. 30820957</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref152" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bentler PM, Chou C-P. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research. 1987; 16; 1: 78-117. 10.1177/0049124187016001004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref106" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bitsika V, Sharpley CF. Understanding, experiences, and reactions to bullying experiences in boys with an Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 2014; 26; 6: 747-761. 10.1007/s10882-014-9393-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blake JJ, Lund EM, Zhou Q, Kwok O, Benz MR. National prevalence rates of bully victimization among students with disabilities in the United States. School Psychology Quarterly. 2012; 27; 4: 210-222. 10.1037/spq0000008. 23294235</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bradshaw CP, Waasdorp TE, Johnson SL. Overlapping verbal, relational, physical, and electronic forms of bullying in adolescence: Influence of school context. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2015; 44; 3: 494-508. 10.1080/15374416.2014.893516. 24738548</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brion-Meisels G, Garnett BR. Toward an integrated theory of relational youth violence: Bridging a gap among the theory, research, and practice of bullying prevention. Contemporary School Psychology. 2015; 20; 3: 240-253. 10.1007/s40688-015-0080-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bruni TP. Test review: Social responsiveness scale-second edition (SRS-2). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2014; 32; 4: 365-369. 10.1177/0734282913517525</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell M, Hwang Y-S, Whiteford C, Dillon-Wallace J, Ashburner J, Saggers B, Carrington S. Bullying prevalence in students with autism spectrum disorder. Australasian Journal of Special Education. 2017; 41; 2: 101-122. 10.1017/jse.2017.5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cantone E, Piras AP, Vellante M, Preti A, Daníelsdóttir S, D'Aloja E, Lesinskiene S, Angermeyer MC, Carta MG, Bhugra D. Interventions on bullying and cyberbullying in schools: A systematic review. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health. 2015; 11; 1: 58-76. 10.2174/1745017901511010058. 25834628. 4378064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Canty J, Stubbe M, Steers D, Collings S. The trouble with bullying - deconstructing the conventional definition of bullying for a child-centred investigation into children's use of social media. Children and Society. 2016; 30: 48-58. 10.1111/chso.12103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cappadocia MC, Weiss JA, Pepler D. Bullying experiences among children and youth with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2012; 42; 2: 266-277. 10.1007/s10803-011-1241-x. 21499672</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Catone, G, Signoriello, S, Pisano, S, Siciliano, M, Russo, K, Marotta, R, Carotenuto, M, Broome, M. R, Gritti, A, Senese, V. P, & Pascotto, A. (2019). Epidemiological pattern of bullying using a multi-assessment approach: Results from the Bullying and Youth Mental Health Naples Study (BYMHNS). Child Abuse and Neglect, 89(December 2018), 18–28 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.12.018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cholemkery H, Kitzerow J, Rohrmann S, Freitag CM. Validity of the social responsiveness scale to differentiate between autism spectrum disorders and disruptive behaviour disorders. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2014; 23; 2: 81-93. 10.1007/s00787-013-0427-5. 23719758</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chou W-J, Hsiao RC, Ni H-C, Liang SH-Y, Lin C-F, Chan H-L, Hsieh Y-H, Wang L-J, Lee M-J, Hu H-F, Yen C-F. Self-reported and parent-reported school bullying in adolescents with high functioning autism spectrum disorder: The roles of autistic social impairment, attention-deficit/hyperactivity and oppositional defiant disorder symptoms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16; 7: 1-13. 10.3390/ijerph16071117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Constantino, J. N, & Gruber, C. P. (2012). The social responsiveness scale manual, Second Edition (SRS-2). Western Psychological Services.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook A, Ogden J, Winstone N. Friendship motivations, challenges and the role of masking for girls with autism in contrasting school settings. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 2018; 33; 3: 302-315. 10.1080/08856257.2017.1312797</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Copeland WE, Woke D, Angold A, Costello EJ. Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013; 70; 4: 419-426. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.504. 23426798. 3618584</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Copeland WE, Wolke D, Lereya ST, Shanahan L, Worthman C, Costello EJ. Childhood bullying involvement predicts low-grade systemic inflammation into adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014; 111; 21: 7570-7575. 10.1073/pnas.1323641111</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Craig F, Lamanna AL, Margari F, Matera E, Simone M, Margari L. Overlap between autism spectrum disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Searching for distinctive/common clinical features. Autism Research. 2015; 8; 3: 328-337. 10.1002/aur.1449. 25604000. 4654237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dziuban CD, Harris CW. On the extraction of components and the applicability of the factor model. American Educational Research Journal. 1973; 10: 93-99. 10.3102/00028312010001093</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farmer T, Wike TL, Alexander QR, Rodkin PC, Mehtaji M. Students With disabilities and involvement in peer victimization: Theory, research, and considerations for the future. Remedial and Special Education. 2015; 36; 5: 263-274. 10.1177/0741932515572911</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finger, L. R, Yeung, A. S, Craven, R. G, & Parada, R. H. (2008). Adolescent peer relations instrument: Assessment of its reliability and construct validity when used with upper primary students. Australian Association for Research Education Annual Conference, November, 1–9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher MH, Taylor JL. Let's talk about it: Peer victimization experiences as reported by adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. Autism. 2016; 20; 4: 402-411. 10.1177/1362361315585948. 26019304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forrest DL, Kroeger RA, Stroope S. Autism spectrum disorder symptoms and bullying victimization among children with autism in the United States. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2020; 50; 2: 560-571. 10.1007/s10803-019-04282-9. 31691063</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fountain C, King MD, Bearman PS. Age of diagnosis for autism: Individual and community factors across 10 birth cohorts. Journal of Epidemology and Community Health. 2011; 65; 6: 503-510. 10.1136/jech.2009.104588</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaffney H, Farrington DP, Espelage DL, Ttofi MM. Are cyberbullying intervention and prevention programs effective? A systematic and meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2018. 10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gladden, R. M, Vivolo-Kantor, A. M, Hamburger, M. E, & Lumpkin, C. D. (2014). Bullying surveilance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamby, S, Finkelhor, D, Ormrod, R, & Turner, H. (2005). The juvenile victimization questionnaire (JVQ): Administration and scoring manual. Crimes Against Children Research Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hebron J, Humphrey N. Exposure to bullying among students with autism spectrum conditions: A multi-informant analysis of risk and protective factors. Autism. 2014; 18; 6: 618-630. 10.1177/1362361313495965. 23886576</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hicks J, Jennings L, Jennings S, Berry S, Green D-A. Middle school bullying: Student reported perceptions and prevalence. Journal of Child and Adolescent Counseling. 2018; 4: 195-208. 10.1080/23727810.2017.1422645</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holfeld B, Grabe M. Middle school students' perceptions of and responses to cyber bullying. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2012; 46; 4: 395-413. 10.2190/EC.46.4.e</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howard MC. A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: What we are doing and how can we improve?. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2016; 32; 1: 51-62. 10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu H-FF, Liu T-LL, Hsiao RC, Ni H-CC, Liang SH-YY, Lin C-FF, Chan H-LL, Hsieh Y-HH, Wang L-JJ, Lee M-JJ, Chou W-JJ, Yen C-FF. Cyberbullying victimization and perpetration in adolescents with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder: Correlations with depression, anxiety, and suicidality. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2019; 49; 10: 4170-4180. 10.1007/s10803-019-04060-7. 31267285</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang FL, Cornell DG. Question order affects the measurement of bullying victimization among middle school students. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2016; 76; 5: 724-740. 10.1177/0013164415622664. 29795885</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Humphrey N, Hebron J. Bullying of children and adolescents with autism spectrum conditions: A 'state of the field' review. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 2015; 19; 8: 845-862. 10.1080/13603116.2014.981602</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang S, Kim YS, Koh YJ, Bishop S, Leventhal BL. Discrepancy in perception of bullying experiences and later internalizing and externalizing behavior: A prospective study. Aggressive Behavior. 2017; 43; 5: 493-502. 10.1002/ab.21707. 28326572</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang S, Kim YS, Koh YJ, Leventhal BL. Autism spectrum disorder and school bullying: Who is the victim? Who is the perpetrator?. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2018; 48; 1: 225-238. 10.1007/s10803-017-3285-z. 28936640. 5886362</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaiser HF. A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika. 1970; 35: 401-415. 10.1007/BF02291817</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenny, D. A. (2015). Measuring model fit. Retrieved April 27, 2020 from <ulink href="http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm">http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kloosterman PH, Kelley EA, Craig WM, Parker JDA, Javier C. Types and experiences of bullying in adolescents with an autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2013; 7; 7: 824-832. 10.1016/j.rasd.2013.02.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kloosterman PH, Kelley EA, Parker JDA, Craig WM. Executive functioning as a predictor of peer victimization in adolescents with and without an Autism Spectrum Disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2014; 8; 3: 244-254. 10.1016/j.rasd.2013.12.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kofoed, J, & Staksrud, E. (2019). 'We always torment different people, so by definition, we are no bullies': The problem of definitions in cyberbullying research. In New Media and Society (Vol. 21, Issue 4, pp. 1006–1020). https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818810026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kowalski RM, Fedina C. Cyber bullying in ADHD and Asperger syndrome populations. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2011; 5; 3: 1201-1208. 10.1016/j.rasd.2011.01.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee T, Cornell D. Concurrent validity of the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Journal of School Violence. 2010; 9; 1: 56-73. 10.1080/15388220903185613</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Little L. Middle-class mothers' perceptions of peer and sibling victimization among children with Asperger's syndrome and nonverbal learning disorders. Comprehensive Child and Adolescent Nursing. 2002; 25; 1: 43-57. 10.1080/014608602753504847</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods. 1996; 1; 2: 130-149. 10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maïano C, Normand CL, Salvas M-C, Moullec G, Aimé A. Prevalence of school bullying among youth with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Autism Research. 2016; 9; 6: 601-615. 10.1002/aur.1568. 26451871</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mandell DS, Morales KH, Xie M, Lawer LJ, Stahmer AC, Marcus SC. Age of diagnosis among medicaid-enrolled children with autism, 2001–2004. Psychiatric Services. 2010; 61; 8: 822-829. 10.1176/ps.2010.61.8.822. 20675842</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martinez M, Thomas KC, Williams CS, Christian R, Crais E, Pretzel R, Hooper SR. Family experiences with the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder: System barriers and facilitators of efficient diagnosis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2018; 48; 7: 2368-2378. 10.1007/s10803-018-3493-1. 29453706</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayes SD, Calhoun SL, Siddiqui F, Baweja R, Waschbusch DA, Mattison RE, Babinski DE. Mother, father, and teacher agreement on victimization and bullying in children with psychiatric disorders. Violence and Victims. 2017; 32: 466-478. 10.4172/2471-4372.1000123. 28516854</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McVie S. The impact of bullying perpetration and victimization on later violence and psychological distress: A study of resilience among a Scottish youth cohort. Journal of School Violence. 2014; 13: 39-58. 10.1080/15388220.2013.841586</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merrell KW, Gueldner BA, Ross SW, Isava DM. How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly. 2008; 23; 1: 26-42. 10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mishna F, Pepler D, Wiener J. Factors associated with perceptions and responses to bullying situations by children, parents, teachers, and principals. Victims and Offenders. 2006; 1; 3: 255-288. 10.1080/15564880600626163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Modecki KL, Minchin J, Harbaugh AG, Guerra NG, Runions KC. Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2014; 55; 5: 602-611. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morton HE. Assessment of bullying in autism spectrum disorder: Systematic review of methodologies and participant characteristics. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2021. 10.1007/s40489-020-00232-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morton HE, Bottini SB, Pugliesi D, Romanczyk RG, Gillis JM. Was that bullying? A mixed-methods examination of layperson views in the context of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Contemporary School Psychology. 2019. 10.1007/s40688-019-00265-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morton HE, Gillis JM, Mattson RE, Romanczyk RG. Conceptualizing bullying in children with autism spectrum disorder: Using a mixed model to differentiate behavior types and identify predictors. Autism. 2019; 23; 7: 1853-1864. 10.1177/1362361318813997. 30887817</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nansel TR, Overpeck M, Pilla RS, Ruan WJ, Simons-Morton B, Scheidt P. Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2001; 285; 16: 2094-2100. 10.1001/jama.285.16.2094. 11311098</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Novin S, Broekhof E, Rieffe C. Bidirectional relationships between bullying, victimization and emotion experience in boys with and without autism. Autism. 2019; 23; 3: 796-800. 10.1177/1362361318787446. 30073863</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olweus D. Bullying at school. 1993; Blackwell Publishers</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olweus, D. (1999). Norway. In The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 28–48).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pepler, D, & Craig, W. (2014). Bullying prevention and intervention in the school environment: Factsheets and tools. Fact Sheet, 1–15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petrou AM, Parr JR, Mcconachie H. Gender differences in parent-reported age at diagnosis of children with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2018; 50: 32-42. 10.1016/j.rasd.2018.02.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rieffe C, Camodeca M, Pouw LBC, Lange AMC, Stockmann L. Don't anger me! Bullying, victimization, and emotion dysregulation in young adolescents with ASD. European Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2012; 9; 3: 351-370. 10.1080/17405629.2012.680302</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowley E, Chandler S, Baird G, Simonoff E, Pickles A, Loucas T, Charman T. The experience of friendship, victimization and bullying in children with an autism spectrum disorder: Associations with child characteristics and school placement. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2012; 6; 3: 1126-1134. 10.1016/j.rasd.2012.03.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell G, Rodgers LR, Ukoumunne OC, Ford T. Prevalence of parent-reported ASD and ADHD in the UK: Findings from the millennium cohort study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2014; 44; 1: 31-40. 10.1007/s10803-013-1849-0. 23719853</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saggers B, Campbell M, Dillon-Wallace J, Ashburner J, Hwang YS, Carrington S, Tones M. Understandings and experiences of bullying: Impact on students on the Autism Spectrum. Australasian Journal of Special Education. 2017; 41; 2: 123-140. 10.1017/jse.2017.6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online. 2003; 8; 2: 23-74</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz D, Lansford JE, Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE. Peer victimization during middle childhood as a lead indicator of internalizing problems and diagnostic outcomes in late adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2015; 44; 3: 393-404. 10.1080/15374416.2014.881293. 24660666</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sedgewick F, Hill V, Pellicano E. 'It's different for girls': Gender differences in the friendships and conflict of autistic and neurotypical adolescents. Autism. 2019; 23; 5: 1119-1132. 10.1177/1362361318794930. 30280923</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shtayermman O. Peer victimization in adolescents and young adults diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome: A link to depressive symptomatology, anxiety symptomatology and suicidal ideation. Comprehensive Child and Adolescent Nursing. 2007; 30; 3: 87-107. 10.1080/01460860701525089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silberg JL, Copeland W, Linker J, Moore AA, Roberson-Nay R, York TP. Psychiatric outcomes of bullying victimization: A study of discordant monozygotic twins. Psychological Medicine. 2016; 46; 09: 1875-1883. 10.1017/S0033291716000362. 26979565. 4939844</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sofronoff K, Dark E, Stone V. Social vulnerability and bullying in children with Asperger syndrome. Autism. 2011; 15; 3: 355-372. 10.1177/1362361310365070. 21430018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spears B, Slee P, Owens L, Johnson B. Behind the scenes and screens. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/journal of Psychology. 2009; 217; 4: 189-196. 10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.189</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sreckovic MA, Brunsting NC, Able H. Victimization of students with autism spectrum disorder: A review of prevalence and risk factors. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2014; 8; 9: 1155-1172. 10.1016/j.rasd.2014.06.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sterzing PR, Shattuck PT, Narendorf SC, Wagner M, Cooper BP. Bullying involvement and autism spectrum disorders: Prevalence and correlates of bullying involvement among adolescents with an autism spectrum disorder. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2012; 166; 11: 1058-1064. 10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.790.Prevalence. 22945284</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Storch EA, Larson MJ, Ehrenreich-May J, Arnold EB, Jones AM, Renno P, Fujii C, Lewin AB, Mutch PJ, Murphy TK, Wood JJ. Peer victimization in youth with autism spectrum disorders and co-occurring anxiety: Relations with psychopathology and loneliness. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 2012; 24; 6: 575-590. 10.1007/s10882-012-9290-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Takizawa R, Maughan B, Arseneault L. Adult health outcomes of childhood bullying victimization: Evidence from a five-decade longitudinal British birth cohort. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2014; 171; 7: 777-784. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13101401. 24743774</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor LA, Saylor C, Twyman K, MacIas M. Adding insult to injury: Bullying experiences of youth with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Children's Health Care. 2010; 39; 1: 59-72. 10.1080/02739610903455152</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas P, Zahorodny W, Peng B, Kim S, Jani N, Halperin W, Brimacombe M. The association of autism diagnosis with socioeconomic status. Autism. 2012; 16; 2: 201-213. 10.1177/1362361311413397. 21810908</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tipton-Fisler LA, Rodriguez G, Zeedyk SM, Blacher J. Stability of bullying and internalizing problems among adolescents with ASD, ID, or typical development. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2018; 80: 131-141. 10.1016/j.ridd.2018.06.004. 30015271. 8091940</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ttofi MM, Farrington DP. Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2011; 7: 27-56. 10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ung D, McBride N, Collier A, Selles R, Small B, Phares V, Storch E. The relationship between peer victimization and the psychological characteristics of youth with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2016; 32: 70-79. 10.1016/j.rasd.2016.09.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Roekel E, Scholte RHJ, Didden R. Bullying among adolescents with autism spectrum disorders: Prevalence and perception. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2010; 40: 63-73. 10.1007/s10803-009-0832-2. 19669402</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Velicer WF. Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika. 1976; 41; 3: 321-327. 10.1007/BF02293557</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vivolo-Kantor AM, Martell BN, Holland KM, Westby R. A systematic review and content analysis of bullying and cyber-bullying measurement strategies. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2014; 19; 4: 423-434. 10.1016/j.avb.2014.06.008. 26752229. 4703330</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Volk AA, Veenstra R, Espelage DL. So you want to study bullying? Recommendations to enhance the validity, transparency, and compatibility of bullying research. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2017; 36; June: 34-43. 10.1016/j.avb.2017.07.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winters RR, Blake JJ, Chen S. Bully victimization among children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A longitudinal examination of behavioral phenotypes. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2018; 28; 2: 80-91. 10.1177/1063426618814724</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolke D, Copeland WE, Angold A, Costello EJ. Impact of bullying in childhood on adult health, wealth, crime, and social outcomes. Psychological Science. 2013; 24; 10: 1958-1970. 10.1177/0956797613481608. 23959952</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolraich ML, Lambert W, Doffing MA, Bickman L, Simmons T, Worley K. Psychometric properties of the Vanderbilt ADHD diagnostic parent rating scale in a referred population. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 2003; 28; 8: 559-568. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsg046. 14602846</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yerys BE, Wallace GL, Sokoloff JL, Shook DA, James JD, Kenworthy L. Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms moderate cognition and behavior in children with autism spectrum disorders. Autism Research. 2009; 2; 6: 322-333. 10.1002/aur.103. 19998356. 3012375</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Younan B. A systematic review of bullying definitions: How definition and format affect study outcome. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research. 2019; 11; 2: 109-115. 10.1108/JACPR-02-2018-0347</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zablotsky B, Bradshaw CP, Anderson C, Law PA. The association between bullying and the psychological functioning of children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. 2013; 34: 1-8. 10.1097/DBP.0b013e31827a7c3a. 23275052</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zablotsky B, Bradshaw CP, Anderson CM, Law P. Risk factors for bullying among children with autism spectrum disorders. Autism. 2014; 18; 4: 419-427. 10.1177/1362361313477920. 23901152</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeedyk SM, Rodriguez G, Tipton LA, Baker BL, Blacher J. Bullying of youth with autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, or typical development: Victim and parent perspectives. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2014; 8; 9: 1173-1183. 10.1016/j.rasd.2014.06.001. 25285154. 4178308</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zoski KW, Jurs S. An objective counterpart to the visual scree test for factor analysis: The standard error scree. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1996; 56; 3: 443-451. 10.1177/0013164496056003006</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Hannah E. Morton; Jennifer M. Gillis; Emily L. Zale; Kim C. Brimhall and Raymond G. Romanczyk</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib382" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib741" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib199" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib324" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib329" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib328" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref166"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref173"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref174"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref175"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1351466
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Development and Validation of the Assessment of Bullying Experiences Questionnaire for Neurodivergent Youth
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Morton%2C+Hannah+E%2E%22">Morton, Hannah E.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5487-5182">0000-0002-5487-5182</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gillis%2C+Jennifer+M%2E%22">Gillis, Jennifer M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zale%2C+Emily+L%2E%22">Zale, Emily L.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brimhall%2C+Kim+C%2E%22">Brimhall, Kim C.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Romanczyk%2C+Raymond+G%2E%22">Romanczyk, Raymond G.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Autism+and+Developmental+Disorders%22"><i>Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders</i></searchLink>. Nov 2022 52(11):4651-4664.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bullying%22">Bullying</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation%22">Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parents%22">Parents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Youth%22">Youth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Neurodevelopmental+Disorders%22">Neurodevelopmental Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Neurological+Impairments%22">Neurological Impairments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Neurological+Organization%22">Neurological Organization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Neurology%22">Neurology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Autism+Spectrum+Disorders%22">Autism Spectrum Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attention+Deficit+Hyperactivity+Disorder%22">Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Control+Groups%22">Control Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Validity%22">Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10803-021-05330-z
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0162-3257<br />1573-3432
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Bullying victimization is a prevalent concern for neurodivergent (e.g., autistic, ADHD) youth. Bullying assessment methods vary widely and there is currently no questionnaire specific to neurodivergent youth. The "Assessment of Bullying Experiences" ("ABE") was created to fill this gap. The "ABE" questionnaire was completed by 335 parents of school-age youth characterized as autistic, having ADHD, or community comparison. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis identified a four-factor solution, aligning with verbal, physical, relational, and cyber victimization. Construct validity analyses indicate the "ABE" converges with an existing bullying questionnaire and diverges from disruptive behavior or internalizing symptoms. The "ABE" questionnaire is a valid measure of bullying that furthers understanding of nuance in peer victimization for neurodivergent youth and informs group-specific intervention.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1351466
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1351466
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10803-021-05330-z
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 4651
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Bullying
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Youth
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Neurodevelopmental Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Neurological Impairments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Neurological Organization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Neurology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Autism Spectrum Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Control Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Development and Validation of the Assessment of Bullying Experiences Questionnaire for Neurodivergent Youth
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Morton, Hannah E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gillis, Jennifer M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zale, Emily L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brimhall, Kim C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Romanczyk, Raymond G.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0162-3257
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-3432
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 52
            – Type: issue
              Value: 11
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
              Type: main
ResultId 1